OPINION: Warren Doesn’t Care About Her Home State, Cares Less About The Nation

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Rachel Tripp Contributor
Font Size:

During a recent debate against her Massachusetts Senate opponent Geoff Diehl, Sen. Elizabeth Warren failed to correctly identify a pivotal Massachusetts town of over 20,000 people, exemplifying that she is shamefully out of touch with the state she has represented for six years.

But that came as no surprise to her constituents, who have begun to notice that their Senator doesn’t view them as a priority.

Despite repeatedly denying her presidential ambitions, Warren’s actions show that her true goals lie with her own ambitions, and the people she represents are just stepping stones to her place in a higher office. Her voting record demonstrates a willingness support any agenda that will win her national favor, even at the expense of her own constituents. 

Looking at how Warren has spent her time in office, her lack of familiarity with the state becomes less surprising. In the six years since her election, Warren has spent very little time in Massachusetts itself. Instead, she has been on a rigorous schedule suited only to someone with presidential priorities.

By writing books, going on promotional tours, and speaking at rallies and campaign events in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Illinois, California and Nevada, Warren has demonstrated that the people of Massachusetts are an afterthought.

Her constant lack of presence in the state she represents even warranted its own awareness campaign, the “Where’s Warren?” initiative. Started by her opponent Geoff Diehl, the “Where’s Warren?” campaign has been highlighting Warren’s presidential goals and shedding light on the Senator’s constant lack of local presence. 

Warren has been less than subtle about using her time in the Senate to promote herself as the next 2020 Democratic nominee and has frequently voted against bills that would help Massachusetts in order to gain national favor.

In December 2016, Warren voted against the 21st Century Cures Act, a bipartisan act which aimed to modernize the drug and medical device approval process, accelerate drug and device innovation by boosting funding for research, and get cures onto the market faster.

One of the bills most vocal critics, Warren did not stop to consider whether the Cures Act would be beneficial to her home state. Her opposition to the bill was in conflict with the views of her constituents, who saw it as a chance to receive lifesaving funding for opioid addiction and cancer research.

The bill contained over $12 million in funds intended to fight addiction across the state and provided more than $6 billion in funding for medical research, including funds meant to help breast cancer patients gain access to potentially life-saving new drugs.

The bill was so beneficial that activists across Massachusetts, including teaching hospitals mental health organizations, and the Massachusetts Organization for Addiction Recovery, started a campaign urging Warren to support this “desperately needed” funding.

Warren voted against the bill, choosing national media attention over funds to fight one of the fastest growing opioid epidemics in the nation. 

Diehl is not the only one concerned about what a Warren presidential campaign would mean for Massachusetts. In March of 2018, Warren refused to sign a pledge to serve her full term in the Senate if elected and suggested a desire to run for President.

This bolstered an already growing sense of unrest among Massachusetts voters, who have begun to notice that their Senator doesn’t view them as a priority. A potential presidential campaign is equally unappealing since it would position the state for a potential tumultuous lack of leadership come 2020. 

Warren’s lack of transparency is catching up with her. While Massachusetts is beginning to see her true colors, the rest of the nation does not have six years of hindsight to fall back on. Warren’s political allies have made her a powerful contender and one of the Democratic party’s most prominent leaders.

What must be made clear is that Warren is driven only by selfish ambition, and she is willing to neglect her own home state if it will help her achieve her higher goals. This raises serious concerns over her ability to be an effective leader – how can we have a President who won’t fight for her own state?

Hopefully, Massachusetts will wake up in time to vote out Warren in November, and the rest of the country will shortly follow suit. 

Rachel Tripp is a Young Voices contributor who writes about liberty from Washington, D.C.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.